A specter is haunting Asia—the specter of full Chinese domination
in the South China Sea. Latest reports suggest that China could soon move ahead[4]
with building military facilities on the Scarborough Shoal, a contested
land feature it has occupied since 2012. This would allow China,
according to a Mainland source, to “further perfect” its aerial
superiority across the contested waters. By building a sprawling network[5] of dual-purposes facilities, and more recently deploying[6] advanced military assets to its artificially created islands, China is inching closer to establishing a de facto
Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the area. Integrating the
Scarborough Shoal into its burgeoning defensive perimeter across the
South China Sea will not only give it an upper hand in the contested
waters, but also allow China to place the Philippines’ capital and
industrialized regions within its strategic reach.
This is nothing short of a nightmare for the Philippines, which is already struggling to protect[7]
its supply lines in the Spratly chain of islands due to growing Chinese
military assertiveness in contested waters. Unlike most of Chinese
occupied features, which lie well beyond the immediate shores of other
claimant states, the Scarborough Shoal is located just about 120
nautical miles off the coast of the Philippines, well within the
country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)—and also its continental shelf.
To put things into perspective, the shoal lies nine hundred kilometers
away from the closest Chinese coastline. For Manila, the contested land
feature is arguably what James Shoal is to Malaysia and Hainan is to
Mainland China.
Manila lost control over the shoal after a tense standoff[8]
with Chinese coast guard forces in the middle of 2012. But for more
than a century, the Philippines has treated Scarborough Shoal as its
northernmost outpost in the South China Sea. In fact, as far back[9]
as the Spanish colonial era, the Southeast Asian country has treated
the shoal as the natural extension of its national territory. During
Cold War years, it was a gunnery range and regular area of naval
exercises for American forces, which accessed military bases in the
Philippines.
As a leading Filipino maritime-law expert, Jay Batongbacal, explains, it was only[9] after the departure of American military bases (1991) that China began to “take concrete action to assert its long-dormant paper claim[10]
to the shoal, beginning with the issuance of amateur-radio licenses to
hobbyists in 1994,” the year China wrested control of the
Philippine-claimed Mischief Reef. In short, China’s assertion of its
(supposedly) historical claim on the land feature was hinged on
coldblooded balance-of-power calculations. Cognizant of the Philippines’
minimal-to-nonexistent deterrence capability[11] and the Obama administration’s equivocations[12] on the extent of its defense obligations to Manila, China felt confident enough to usurp control over the shoal.
Meanwhile, the Philippines has been drenched in the ecstasy of
presidential elections, with growing indications that the next
government could be on a much more friendly footing with China, which
giddily expressed its[13]
hope that the “new [Philippine] government can adopt positive and
well-thought policies towards China, properly deal with relevant
disputes, and improve bilateral relations with concrete actions."
Yet it’s far from assured that the next Filipino president will continue the incumbent administration’s[14] alignment with America as well as its tough posturing against China. With the Arbitral Tribunal[15] at The Hague expected to issue its final verdict on the Philippines’ case[16]
against China in coming months, the predisposition of the incoming
Filipino president has gained greater salience. Above all, however,
everyone is wondering about the United States’ next move: Will it stand
by its ally and try to prevent China’s prospective militarization of the
Scarborough Shoal, or, alternatively, will it continue its futile—if
not counterproductive—policy of strategic ambiguity on the issue? Time
is of essence.Tightening Noose
China is beginning to feel the heat. Earlier this year, the usually
meek Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), after a retreat
with U.S. president Barack Obama at Sunnylands, released a joint statement[17],
which can be interpreted as a collective support for the Philippines’
arbitration case and, more explicitly, growing regional worry over
China’s revanchist activities in the South China Sea.
Both American and ASEAN leaders expressed their shared "commitment to peaceful resolution of disputes, including full respect for legal [author’s
emphasis] and diplomatic processes, without resorting to threat or use
of force, in accordance with universally recognized principles of
international law,” specifically the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They also reiterated the centrality of
"non-militarization and self-restraint" in the disputed waters, in
accordance to the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties (DOC[18])
in the South China Sea, which (Paragraph V) discourages China and ASEAN
claimant states from “inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands,
reefs, shoals, cays, and other features.”
Shortly after the Sunnyland Summit, the ASEAN foreign ministers reiterated[19]
their earlier joint statement with America, expressing how they have
“remained seriously concerned over the recent and ongoing developments
[in the South China Sea] and took note of the concern expressed by some
ministers on the land reclamations and escalation of activities in the
area." During the recently concluded Group of 7 (G7) summit, the world’s
leading Western powers and Japan were even more specific in supporting
the Philippines’ arbitration case against China.
In their joint statement[20],
foreign ministers of the leading industrialized countries expressed
their vigorous opposition to “intimidating, coercive or provocative
unilateral actions that could alter the status quo and increase
tensions,” an unmistakable jab against China’s activities in the South
China Sea. They also emphasized the centrality of the “peaceful
management and settlement of maritime disputes . . . through applicable
internationally recognized legal dispute settlement mechanisms,
including arbitration,” an unmistakable endorsement of the Philippines’
arbitration case against China, which has boycotted the whole
proceeding.
A besieged China lashed back, urging[21]
“the G7 member states to honor their commitment of not taking sides on
issues involving territorial disputes." Worried about isolation in the
region, China has also stepped up its efforts to divide-and-conquer
ASEAN, urging[22] Brunei, Laos (the current ASEAN chair) and Cambodia to decouple the South China Sea disputes from the regional agenda. China’s continued foray[23]
into Malaysian and Indonesian fishing grounds has also provoked a
massive diplomatic backlash, with Jakarta threatening to revisit its
relations with Beijing in light of what it views as a direct assault on
its territorial integrity and sovereign rights within its EEZ. Malaysia may[24] follow suit. China has practically alienated all key ASEAN states, including (ethnic-Chinese-majority) Singapore[25], which has openly accused Beijing of undermining regional unity on the South China Sea issue.
Though China’s plans for dominating the so-called First Island Chain[26] go back decades—mainly based on the strategic vision[27] of Beijing’s Mahan, Liu Huaqing, who was the commander of the Chinese navy from 1982-88—it
is only in recent years that China has developed the requisite
capabilities and mustered sufficient political will to push across its
adjacent waters. But China is also beginning to realize that it can’t
dominate its adjacent waters without losing the good will of its smaller
neighbors. Relations with the Philippines have been particularly toxic[28]
in recent years. In fact, under the Aquino administration, the
Southeast Asian country has been on the forefront of efforts to build
international pressure on China.Great Uncertainty
The leaders in Beijing, however, seem optimistic that the upcoming
elections in the Philippines may lead to some favorable recalibrations.
And it has a lot of cards to play. For one, the shadow of an impending
Chinese military base just 120 nautical miles off the coast of the
Philippines is hovering above the Filipino presidential elections. One
can’t rule out the possibility that China is trying to coax the Filipino
presidential candidates into compromise by raising the prospect of
militarizing the Scarborough Shoal.
More specifically, with the arbitration verdict expected soon,
Beijing may be trying to intimidate the incoming Filipino administration
against fully using the likely favorable outcome for the Philippines.
Many legal experts expect the Arbitral Tribunal to nullify China’s
claims over low-tide-elevations (LTEs) such as Mischief Reef and Subi
Reef, providing a perfect legal pretext for expansive American-led
Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) against China. The arbitration
panel may even go so far as deciding on the validity of China’s
notorious nine-dashed-line claims, which covers much of the South China
Sea, as well as the validity and legal basis of its ‘historical
rights/waters’ claims.
At the very least, China may be seeking to cajole the next Filipino
president into keeping mum on the arbitration outcome, that is to say,
to treat it as an advisory opinion and a relic of the past
administration’s strategy rather than a binding legal decision under the
aegis of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Interestingly, both leading[29] presidential (Rodrigo Duterte[30]) and vice-presidential (Ferdinand Marcos Jr[31].) candidates have signaled their interest in engagement rather than confrontation with China.
On his part, Marcos Jr., the only son of the late dictator, has
consistently called for robust engagement and compromise with China.
Even before taking the lead in the vice-presidential race, he called on[32]
the Philippine government to “make arrangement with China”, which
involves negotiations on the Philippines’ fishing rights in contested
waters but, crucially, “not the contentious issue of who owns the
territories,” essentially, he expressed openness to a compromise over
the sovereignty question. Echoing the vice-presidential frontrunner,
Duterte has not only expressed his openness to direct talks with China
as well as a possible joint development deal, but recently even stated[33] that if China will "build me a train around Mindanao, build me train from Manila to Bicol . . . build me a train [going to] Batangas[33], for the six years that I'll be president, I'll shut up [on the sovereignty disputes]."
Both candidates don’t seem to be gung-ho on the Philippines’
arbitration case against China. So it’s possible that the next
Philippine government will not fully leverage the arbitration outcome
against China, and in exchange might seek guarantees from the latter on
the nonmilitarization of Scarborough Shoal. But given the great
anti-China sentiment in the Philippines, coupled with bitter experiences
with join-development arrangements with China in the past, the Aquino
administration’s successor will have relatively limited[34]
room for maneuver, especially if China decides to build military
facilities on the Scarborough Shoal and/or escalate its para-military
and fishing activities within the Philippines’ EEZ.
At this point, everything boils down to how far the United States is
willing to go to aid its beleaguered ally. There is growing pressure on
the Obama administration to openly extend[35]
the Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty to Scarborough Shoal in order
to deter further Chinese belligerence. After all, America’s current policy of strategic ambiguity[36] doesn’t seem to have worked. As America ramps up its military presence[37]
in the Philippines under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, it
has no interest in seeing China establishing military bases eerily
close to Philippine shores.
More directly, the Philippines also has the option of deploying
frigates and coast-guard vessels to block any efforts by China to build
military facilities on the contested shoal, with America providing back
up support—through reconnaissance missions and aerial patrols, inter
alia—by maintaining a robust presence ‘just over the horizon’. The two
allies have been already conducting joint patrols[38] in contested waters. America is currently augmenting its military footprint[39],
particular air power, in the Philippines, signaling preparations for
potential contingency interventions in coming months. In the Scarborough
Shoal, America is expected to come[40]
to the Philippines’ rescue if Philippine “armed forces, public vessels
or aircraft in the Pacific” come under attack by a third party (China)
in an event of armed clashes. The United States, along with allies such
as Japan and Australia, are also expected to assume[41] the de facto
role of enforcers once the arbitration verdict is out. Whether it wants
it or not, the Philippines is now at the center of Asia’s new strategic
battlefield.Richard Javad Heydarian is an Assistant Professor in political
science at De La Salle University, and formerly a policy adviser at the
Philippine House of Representatives (2009-2015). The Manila Bulletin,
a leading national daily, has described him as one of the Philippines’
“foremost foreign policy and economic analysts.” He is the author of Asia’s New Battlefield: The US, China, and the Struggle for Western Pacific[42] (Zed, London)[42], and a regular to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).Image[43]: Philippine Marines at an exercise. US military photo, public domain.

Ron Paul Speaks Out About Voting: “The System Is All Rigged…It Really Doesn’t Count”

The three-time presidential candidate and former
member of the U.S. House of Representatives has voiced concerns for the
legitimacy of the voting system. You’ll want to hear this…

Three-time presidential candidate and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives Dr. Ron Paul recently voiced concerns for the legitimacy of the voting system in the United States:

“This is the way the
system works, it’s a rotten system, and I see elections as so much of a
charade. So much deceit goes on…whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat
president, the people who want to keep the status quo seem to have their
finger in the pot and can control things. They just get so nervous so,
if they have an independent thinker out there, whether it’s Sanders, or
Trump, or Ron Paul, they’re going to be very desperate to try to change
things… More people are discovering that the system is all rigged, and
that voting is just pacification for the voters and it really doesn’t
count.”

Like Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul
established a reputation throughout his campaign for appealing to the
intellect of voters and trying to expose the realities of the U.S.
electoral system. His stance, and that of other like-minded individuals
like Sanders, is clear: presidential elections are rigged. He explains
how voting is simply an illusion, one meant to mimic democracy rather
than actually serve it; he reveals it is a charade not intended to
facilitate democracy at all. Paul’s opinions seem to echo that of
Sanders’, in that corporate interests will continually prevail, thus
hindering the chosen president in producing actual change. Sanders presented
a similar train of thought in a recent debate with Hillary Clinton,
stating that “no matter who is elected to be president, that person…
will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the
power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no
president alone can stand up to them.”The idea of the entire democratic
system we promote, believe in, and preach to others being nothing more
than a fallacy is undoubtedly jarring. Given our longstanding history of
condemning other political systems that do not align with democratic
ideals, it is an uncomfortable truth, yet one that has been expressed by
previous political leaders.Theodore Roosevelt once stated
that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible
government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to
the people” in which “presidents are selected, not elected.” Roosevelt
was just one of several political figures
that expressed discontent with the lack of transparency and bias that
exists within the American government, an idea that clearly manifests
itself over and over to this day.

Perhaps it is time we take into
consideration the intellect and experience of these political leaders
and recognize that our world is not all what we have been told it is;
rather, it is on us to demand change from a charade to tangible impact.Are we doomed with a fate of an unfaithful government?Please comment, like, and share!
This article (Ron Paul Speaks Out About Voting: “The System Is All Rigged…It Really Doesn’t Count”) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

Clinton And Trump’s Shared Secret Regarding Their Tax Evasion Was Just Uncovered

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are using the same Delaware address as tax havens.

Credit: E! News

A new investigation conducted by The Guardian
revealed that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both use the same
address in Delaware as a tax haven for their own registered companies.
Tax evasion by the top 1% of the nation (and world) is a huge problem
in the U.S. with consequences that affect the majority of citizens. The
Panama Papers
revealed that many people abroad, including world leaders and
celebrities, are involved in the creation of offshore accounts and shell
companies that hold undisclosed amounts of money in order to evade
taxes. The papers noticeably left out people in the U.S. involved in
this shady business, but that doesn’t mean that American citizens don’t
have a hand in it as well.
Among states in the U.S. that are popularly used for tax havens are
Wyoming, South Dakota, and Nevada, but Delaware is the undisputed
leader. In Delaware, a specific address, 1209 N. Orange Street in Wilmington, is home to 285,000 registered corporations that are taking advantage of the state’s loose tax laws.
With Clinton and Trump running as presidential candidates in opposing
parties, there aren’t many connections that can be made between the two
when it comes to politics and their platforms. One thing they do have
in common is the big money they earn and how they keep as much of it as
possible.
The Guardian did some investigating recently into the
nondescript Delaware building on Orange Street and found that the
Clintons and Trump have corporations registered at the address.

Credit: Google Earth

Hillary Clinton herself registered an LLC called ZFS Holdings
a mere 8 days before the end of her career as Secretary of State in
2013 and it’s confirmed that $16 million that she made in speaking fees
in 2014 was sent through ZFS Holdings. Bill Clinton also registered a
corporation called WJC, LLC to hold his speaking fees.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump uses the same Orange Street address for Trump
International Management Corporation and 40 Wall Street Corporation.
The extent of the money Trump has housed in the state is immeasurable,
but it’s reported that he has 378 corporations registered throughout the tax haven-friendly state.

The loophole that these millionaires and billionaires are taking advantage of is referred to as the “Delaware loophole”
that allows for corporations to evade taxes. The loophole states that a
corporation can shift earnings from another state to Delaware, and
since Delaware doesn’t tax intangible assets from other states, the
“corporations” get by without paying any taxes.
Though it’s not surprising that Trump would be involved in this tax
evasion, it is shocking that Clinton is because of her statements
regarding such tax evasion and loopholes. With comments like,
“You should pay what you owe, just like everybody else,” and “I’ll
close corporate tax loopholes and make sure millionaires and
billionaires can’t pay lower rates than middle-class families.”
A rate of 0% does seem to be lower than the rates for middle-class families though…Are you surprised that Clinton and Trump are involved in evading their taxes? Please comment on, like, and share this article!This article (Clinton And Trump’s Shared Secret Regarding Their Tax Evasion Was Just Uncovered) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

The Collapse of the Western Fiat Monetary System may have Begun. China, Russia and the Reemergence of Gold-Backed CurrenciesBy Peter KoenigGlobal Research, April 21, 2016

Url of this article:http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-the-western-fiat-monetary-system-may-have-begun-china-russia-and-the-reemergence-of-gold-backed-currencies/5521107Global Financial Conflagration: The World of Fiat Money is Buckling under the Pressure of Unpayable Debts

On 19 April 2016, China was rolling out its new gold-backed yuan. Russia’s ruble has been fully supported by gold for the last couple of years. Nobody in the western media talks about it. Why would they? – A western reader may start wondering why he is constantly stressed by a US dollar based fiat monetary systems that is manipulated at will by a small elite of financial oligarchs for their benefit and to the detriment of the common people.

In a recent Russia Insider article, Sergey Glaziev, one of Russia’s top economists and advisor to President Putin said about Russia’s currency, “The ruble Is the most gold-backed currency in the world”. He went on explaining that the amount of rubles circulating is covered by about twice the amount of gold in Russia’s Treasury.

In addition to a financial alliance, Russia and China also have developed in the past couple of years their own money transfer system, the China International Payment System, or the CIPS network which replaces the western transfer system, SWIFT, for Russian-Chinese internal trading. SWIFT, stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, a network operating in 215 countries and territories and used by over 10,000 financial institutions.

Up until recently almost every international monetary transaction had to use SWIFT, a private institution, based in Belgium. ‘Private’ like in the US Federal Reserve Bank (FED), Wall Street banks and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS); all are involved in international monetary transfers and heavily influenced by the Rothschild family. No wonder that the ‘independent’ SWIFT plays along with Washington’s sanctions, for example, cutting off Iran from the international transfer system. Similarly, Washington used its arm-twisting with SWIFT to help Paul Singer’s New York Vulture Fund to extort more than 4 billion dollars from Argentina, by withholding Argentina’s regular debt payments as was agreed with 93% of all creditors. Eventually Argentina found other ways of making its payments, not to fall into disrepute and insolvency.

All of this changed for Argentina, when Mauricio Macri, the new neoliberal President put in place by Washington, appeared on the scene last December. He reopened the negotiations and is ready to pay a sizable junk of this illegal debt, despite a UN decision that a country that reaches a settlement agreement with the majority of the creditors is not to be pressured by non-conforming creditors. In the case of Argentina, the vulture lord bought the country’s default debt for a pittance and now that the nation’s economy had recovered he wants to make a fortune on the back of the population. This is how our western fraudulent monetary system functions.

China’s economy has surpassed that of the United States and this new eastern alliance is considered an existential threat to the fake western economy. CIPS, already used for trading and monetary exchange within China and Russia, is also applied by the remaining BRICS, Brazil, India and South Africa; and by the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), plus India, Pakistan and Iran, as well as the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan). It is said that CIPS is ready to be launched worldwide as early as September 2016. It would be a formidable alternative to the western dollar based monetary Ponzi scheme.

The new eastern monetary sovereignty is one of the major reasons why Washington tries so hard to destroy the BRICS, mainly China and Russia – and lately with a special effort of false accusations also Brazil through a Latin America type Color Revolution.

In addition, the Yuan late last year was accepted by the IMF in its SDR basket as the fifth reserve currency, the other four being the US dollar, the British pound, the euro and the Japanese yen. The SDR, or Special Drawing Right, functions like a virtual currency. It is made up of the weighted average of the five currencies and can be lent to countries at their request, as a way of reducing exchange risks. Being part of the SDR, the yuan has become an official reserve currency. In fact, in Asia the yuan is already heavily used in many countries’ treasuries, as an alternative to the ever more volatile US dollar.

It is no secret, the western dollar-led fiat monetary system is on its last leg – as eventually any Ponzi scheme will be. What does ‘fiat’ mean? It is money created out of thin air. It has no backing whatsoever; not gold, not even the economic output generated by the country or countries issuing the money, i.e. the United States of America and Europe. It is simply declared “legal tender’’ by Government decree.

No pyramid scheme is sustainable in the long run and eventually will collapse. It was invented and is used by a small invisible upper crest of elite making insane amounts of profit on the back of the 99% of us. Since these elitists are in control of the media with their lie propaganda, as well as the warmongering killing machine, US armed forces, NATO, combined with the international security and spy apparatus, CIA, MI6, Mossad, DGSE, the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and more, we are powerless – but powerless only as long as we ignore what’s really going on behind the curtain.

Our western monetary system is based on debt has all the hallmarks of a failing global monster octopus. The US banking system was deregulated in the 1990’s by President Clinton. The European vassals followed suit in the early 2000’s. About 97% of all the money in circulation in the western world is ‘made’ by private banks by a mouse click in the form of ‘loans’ or debt. Every loan a private bank hands out is a liability on that bank’s books; a liability that bears interest, the key generator of the banks’ profits. Profit from thin air! No work, no production, no real added value to the economy.

If and when the banks within this web of debt begin recalling their outstanding liabilities, they may set a non-stoppable avalanche in motion – leading to a chaotic end of the system. This end-run may have just begun. We have seen a gradual build-up since the end of WWII with the armament of the Cold War farce, and a high point with the manufactured sub-prime crisis of 2007 / 2008 / 2009, prompting an artificial and endless global economic crisis which may come crashing down in 2016 / 2017.

The damage may be humongous, leaving behind chaos, poverty, famine, misery – death. With the invisible ruling elite having cashed in, remaining on top and being liable to start again from scratch. – If we let them. It always boils down to the same: An uninformed people can be manipulated at will and is left in awe when hit by unexpected events, like acts of terror by bombs or banks.

Let us be crystal clear – we are all uninformed as long as we listen to and believe in the mainstream media – which are controlled by six Anglo-Zionist media giants, feeding the western public with 90% of the information, the so-called ‘news’ that we consume so eagerly every day; the barrage of lies that repeat themselves in every western country every hour on the hour – and, thus, become the truth. Period.

We must get out of our comfortable armchairs, listen to that innermost spark in the back of our minds, telling us against all avalanches of lies that there is something wrong, that we are being fed deception. We have to dig for the truth. And it is there – on internet, on alternative media, like Global Research, Information Clearing House, VNN, The Saker, NEO, Russia Today, Sputnik News, PressTV, TeleSUR – and many more credible sources of truth-seekers.

Back to the impending collapse. – The ground rules for our pyramid monetary scheme have been laid in 1913 by the creation of the FED. Again, the FED is an entirely private, Rothschild dominated banking institution that serves as the US Central Bank. It is the omnipotent dollar making machine. It was fraudulently and secretly conceived in 1910 on Jekyll Island, Georgia, and described by Jekyll Island history (http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml ) as the “duck hunt” which

“included Senator Nelson Aldrich, his personal secretary Arthur Shelton, former Harvard University professor of economics Dr. A. Piatt Andrew, J.P. Morgan & Co. partner Henry P. Davison, National City Bank president Frank A. Vanderlip and Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. partner Paul M. Warburg. From the start the group proceeded covertly. They began by shunning the use of their last names and met quietly at Aldrich’s private railway car in New Jersey.”

The concoction of these secretive “duck hunters” became in 1913 the privately owned Rothschild dominated Federal Reserve System, the US central bank by deceit.

After signing the FED act into existence, President Woodrow Wilson declared,

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

The Anglo-Saxon system had a central bank in England since way back in 1694. It was then already controlled by the Rothschilds, as was the entire banking system. Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild once declared:

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

The Rothschild family’s fortune cannot be properly estimated, but it must be in the trillions. What Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild may have said some 300 years ago, still holds true to this day.

No wonder, breaking loose of this sham monetary scheme is number one priority of most countries that treasure sovereignty, autonomy and freedom, though they do not dare say so openly, lest the empire lashes out at them punishing them with the very financial terror they want to escape from. And lashing out at the unaligned world the empire does, like a dying beast, attempting to pull with it much of the living world into its own shoveled grave.

Is it therefore coincidence or a rather a purposefully planned convergence of several events as a last ditch effort first to ravage then to salvage as much as possible before the collapse?

On 10 April, Zero Hedge reports “Austria Just Announced A 54% Haircut of Senior Creditors in First “Bail In” Under New European Rules”. The Austrian “bad bank”, the failed Hypo Alpe Adria, that became Heta Asset Resolution AG after the government’s nationalization, found a US$ 8.5 billion hole in its balance sheet, enough to trigger the new European ‘bail-in’ rule. Is it coincidence that also in Austria a major bank failure triggered the Great Depression also on a 10th of April – in 1931? – This is a first in Europe. Be prepared for others to follow, as over-extension of European banks is estimated in excess of a trillion dollars.

On 15 April, the New York Times reported that – Five of Wall Street’s eight largest banks are in defiance of the US banking regulator. The FED and FDIC said that “JP Morgan, Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, State Street and Bank of New York, all lacked ‘credible‘ plans to enter bankruptcy in the event of a financial crisis.” These banks have until October 2016 to comply. Under the new rules a tax-payer bail-out would be unlikely. Hence ‘bail-ins’ could affect millions of depositors and shareholders, their funds being stolen in order to self-rescue the too-big-to-fail banks. After all, non-compliance with the regulator’s requests, or insolvency, can easily be manufactured as a legal base for stealing common people’s savings. No worries, the TBTF banks will not go away, but your savings may.

The CIA released Panama Papers (for who still doubts about the CIA involvement in the release of the Panama Papers,

aimed in a most rudimentary way at defaming the ‘usual suspects’, Presidents Putin and Assad, as well as Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, of course – and others. Strangely no notable EU or US citizens or corporations were on the list. Would anybody seriously believe that Mr. Putin, a former KGB agent, would be so ignorant as to putting his fortune (even if he had any to hide) into Panama, the epitome of a US puppet state, where you can’t flush a toilet without Washington knowing it?

Some token neocons appear in the published papers, like Argentina’s new ‘Washington appointed’ President Mauricio Macri, who is running amok ruining his country. Within less than four months he has rolled Argentina’s economy back by ten years, raising poverty from below 10% in November 2015 to 34% by the end March 2016. The Empire needs him to keep gradually turning Argentina into chaos, however not too quickly, lest he may be ‘deposed’ and replaced by a US adversary – that would not at all be appreciated in Washington. For the types of Macri that made it on the list, the Panama Papers are a warning signal to keep them in-check.

The publication of the Panama Papers may also be an incentive for US citizens and corporations to bring home trillions of undeclared dollar holdings stacked away in overseas tax havens into homeland financial shelters like those in Delaware, Wyoming, South Dakota and Nevada, thereby helping strengthen the gradually decaying dollar.

Simultaneously, some European countries and Japan introduced negative interest rates, so as to increase monetary liquidity, thereby hoping stimulating an ever stagnant economy. That’s the pretext. In reality however, negative interests are but a precursor to a wholly bank controlled financial system. Normally ‘bail-ins’ and negative interest would cause a run on the banks. This has not happened yet.

In Switzerland, one of the first countries to introduce negative interests, the Swiss National Bank reported that the demand of the 1,000 franc notes – one of the world’s highest value denominations (apparently to be maintained despite ECB Draghi’s call for elimination of high denomination bank notes) – increased by 17% (by CHF 4.7 billion – US$ 4.85 billion) in December 2014, the month following the introduction of negative interests. May it be an indication that the Swiss have quietly started hoarding big-denomination cash?

Future hoarding and runs on the banks will be countered by the introduction of a cashless society, i.e. all monetary transactions will gradually become electronic. The process has already begun. In Sweden and other parts of Europe, as well as Japan, cashless supermarkets and department stores claim big success, especially with the young consumers, who happily play along paying electronic cashiers by swiping their cell phones in front of an electronic eye.

The Young and Innocent – if they only knew that the banking oligarchs want to control their money and enslave them with a ‘fun gadget’, they may decide to resist. But well know those who control the system that the young are the drivers of the future. We, the old resistance will eventually die out. Problem solved. – But we are not dead yet. The Times are A-Changing… (Bob Dylan, 1964).

The nefarious trio – ‘bail-ins’, negative interests, and a cash free society – will make living in the industrialized ‘first world’ a sheer nuisance, a stressful dance on toes, as the emperor’s proverbial Damocles Sword hangs intimidatingly above us.

Washington may have one last joker up its sleeve – reintroducing the ‘gold standard’, the very gold standard that Nixon abandoned in 1971. The US have also been accumulating huge amounts of gold over the past 25 years. A new US dollar gold standard would most likely be set at a ratio that would wipe out all US debt, including future ‘unmet obligations’ (GAO – General Accounting Office) of about US$ 125 trillion. It would attempt to keep the western industrialized world in Washington’s orbit, but might lose most of the developing world owning natural resources coveted by the west. These countries oppressed and colonized for centuries are likely to gravitate to the new China-Russia alliance – leaving the outsourced and outwitted west alone without workforce – and with a massive but outdated military power.

To counter the build-up of this criminal last ditch sham by the western Zionist banking czars, China and Russia have been preparing over the last few years an independent financial system, delinked from the US dollar and which now incorporates the BRICS, the SCO nations, as well as the Eurasian Economic Union. This association of countries and economies account for about half the world’s population and at least one third of the globe’s economic output; a fact totally ignored by the mainstream media, for obvious reasons. The Machiavellian sinking ship does not want its passengers to jump to safety.

The 19 April 2016, announcement by China of its gold-backed yuan, no longer convertible into dollars, may just trigger an economic shift into the ‘eastern camp’. Many countries are wary and tired of western exploitation, enslavement, threats of sanctions, oppression and an ever present danger of invasion by the killing machine. The decoupling of the dollar by a third of the world economy may indeed open new horizons, creating new alliances, new hope for a more equal and just world.

Malaysian Airlines MH17 Brought Down by Ukrainian Military Aircraft. The BBC Refutes its Own Lies?By Prof Michel ChossudovskyGlobal Research, April 26, 2016

Url of this article:http://www.globalresearch.ca/malaysian-airlines-mh17-brought-down-ukrainian-military-aircraft-the-bbc-refutes-its-own-lies/5521968Malaysia-MH171

The BBC has announced the release of a documentary on the crash of Malaysian airlines MH17, which will be broadcast on May 3″:

“On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, travelling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed, killing 298 passengers in the worst air disaster for two decades.

Alarmingly, the devastating crash occurred just four months after the mysterious disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370. Is this just a coincidence? The cause of the crash has been focus of a host of conspiracy theories, many of which involve Russia, Ukraine and the CIA.

The official investigation report into MH17 flight argues that only a powerful ground-to-air missile could be responsible. Yet, there are eyewitness accounts of other aircrafts seen flying next to MH17 close to impact. To further fuel the conspiracies, Russia and Ukraine blame each other but both countries are unable to provide all the critical radar data from that day.

Family members do not trust the official explanations and there is a long way to go to bring about justice for the victims. This programme tracks down eye witnesses, and speaks with secret intelligence sources to try to sort fact from fiction. Don’t miss this compelling Conspiracy Files unfold to see whether the mystery can be unravelled.” ( See BBC notice here),

In an unusual twist, the description of the BBC documentary not only goes against the official narrative, it also refutes the BBC’s own July 2014 coverage of the downing of MH17.

According to Australia News in a review of the forthcoming BBC production, the Kiev regime is identified as the culprit:

A CONTROVERSIAL new documentary will investigate claims that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by a Ukraine fighter jet, instead of a Russian missile.In a new BBC documentary titled ‘The Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?’, eyewitnesses will share their accounts of how they saw the aircraft being downed by a nearby fighter jet.

“There are eyewitness accounts of other aircraft seen flying next to MH17 close to impact,” a statement from the BBC said.

The report also suggests that:

“The documentary is also set to analyse the possibility that the downing of the jet was a CIA plot to pin the blame on Russia.”

The geopolitical implications of these statements are potentially dynamite.

They put Washington on the defensive.

What can we expect from the US State Department and John Kerry:

“Sorry, President Putin, we made a mistake, yeah it was Ukraine which brought down the aircraft and we blamed the Russians, sorry for the economic sanctions, we got our countries mixed up”

Highly unlikely.

Already Britain’s tabloids including the BBC are saying there are SEVERAL THEORIES. According to the Daily Mail, the allegation concerning the role of the CIA:

“was put forward by private investigator, Sergey Sokolov, who claimed that the CIA were helped by the Ukrainian secret service and Dutch security service, to place the bombs on the plane in Holland.”

He said: ‘This terrorist act was a pretext for firstly intensifying sanctions on Russia, secondly to show the world that Russia is a barbarian country and thirdly to strengthen the presence of Nato in Europe, particularly Ukraine.’

In all likelihood, Washington will either remain mum or casually dismiss the BBC documentary, while upholding its ongoing hostility towards Moscow.

While the BBC has announced that the documentary refutes the official story as contained in the latest Dutch safety board report (i.e to the effect that MH17 was brought down by a BUK surface to air missile), we will have to wait for the release on May 3, BBC TV Channel 2 to get the full story, including the innuendos. the conspiracy theories, etc.

It is worth noting that according to former UN human rights chief Navi Pillay in a July 2014 statement “the downing of the Malaysia Airines jet could constitute a war crime”.

Analysis

At Global Research, from the outset we have documented extensively the downing of MH17 by a military aircraft. It is important that the underlying record be fully assessed.

Our archive of 100+ Global Research articles and reports on the downing of MH17. confirms that Malaysian Airlines MH17 was not brought down by a BUK surface to air missile. It was brought down by a military aircraft. This was confirmed in our early reports shortly after the downing of MH17.

1. Traffic Control Data: All Aircraft in the Vicinity, Ukraine Su-25 military aircraft within proximity of MH17

SU-25 jet (image right)

Between 5pm-6pm Moscow Time on July 17th, the following aircraft have been identified in the general vicinity of MH17 on its course heading to its fatal destination of Grabovo:

2. Testimony of Spanish Air Traffic Controller in Kiev (Real time Report)

The presence of the Ukrainian military jet was confirmed by Spanish air traffic controller “Carlos” at Kiev Borispol airport shortly after the plane was shot down, as well as eyewitnesses in Donetsk. (see also suppressed BBC TV report below, interviews of witnesses in Donesk)

The Spanish air traffic controller documented the event on Twitter as it happened. He claimed it was not an accident, that the Ukrainian authorities shot down MH17 and were trying to “make it look like an attack by pro-Russians” . His Twitter account was closed down shortly after the tragedy. Although his account has yet to be fully corroborated, some of his claims have been confirmed by Malaysian Airlines and the Russian authorities. (Global Research, July 26, 2016)

Evidence pointing to a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet in the same frame as MH17, also validates the testimony of ‘Carlos’, an ATC contractor in Kiev. ETN received information from an air traffic controller (Borispol Airport) in Kiev on Malaysia Airlines flight MH17:

“This Kiev air traffic controller is a citizen of Spain and was working in the Ukraine. He was taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller along with other foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295 passengers and crew on board. The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation and basing it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military was behind this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down. Military air traffic controllers in internal communication acknowledged the military was involved, and some military chatter said they did not know where the order to shoot down the plane originated from. Obviously it happened after a series of errors, since the very same plane was escorted by two Ukrainian fighter jets until 3 minutes before it disappeared from radar.” (21 Century, Global Research Ibid, emphasis added)

Carlos’ assessment was also confirmed in several media interviews, see his interview with RT (Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17)

3. Machine Gun Like Holes in the Cockpit

According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile. What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit:

The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. (Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” Global Research, July 30, 2014)

[click image right to enlarge]

Based on detailed analysis Peter Haisenko reached the conclusion that the MH17 was not downed by a missile attack:

This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material

4. The OSCE Mission

It is worth noting that the initial statements by OSCE observers (July 31, 2014) broadly confirm the findings of Peter Haisenko:

Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported that shrapnel-like holes were found in two separate pieces of the fuselage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines aircraft that was believed to have been downed by a missile in eastern Ukraine.

Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE group of monitors at his daily briefing described part of the plane’s fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes.” He said the damage was inspected by Malaysian aviation-security officials .(Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2014)

The monitoring OSCE team has not found evidence of a missile fired from the ground as conveyed by official White House statements. As we recall, the US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stated –pointing a finger at Russia– that the Malaysian MH17 plane was “likely downed by a surface-to-air missile operated from a separatist-held location”:

The team of international investigators with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are uncertain if the missile used was fired from the ground as US military experts have previously suggested, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported. (Malay Mail online, emphasis added)

The initial OSCE findings tend to dispel the claim that a BUK missile system brought down the plane.

Evidently, inasmuch as the perforations are attributable to shelling, a shelling operation conducted from the ground could not have brought down an aircraft traveling above 30,000 feet.

Peter Haisenko’s study is corroborated by the Russian Ministry of Defense which pointed to a Ukrainian Su-25 jet in the flight corridor of the MH17, within proximity of the plane. (see air traffic data in 1. above)

(This report was subsequently Suppressed by the BBC, the video on youtube was taken down)

Ironically, the presence of a military aircraft was also confirmed by a BBC report conducted at the crash site on July 23.

All the eyewitnesses interviewed by the BBC confirmed the presence of another military aircraft flying within proximity of Malaysian Airlines MH17 at the time that it was shot down:

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

BBC Report below (suppressed)

The original BBC Video Report published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014 was removed by the BBC.

In a bitter irony, The BBC was censoring its own news productions.

This is the BBC Report, still available on Youtube

BELOW SCREENSHOT OF BC TV REPORT ENTITLED “AND THERE WAS ANOTHER AIRCRAFT” SUPPRESSED BY THE BBC

And there was Another Aircraft

The BBC’s Refutation Media Spin

Following the publication of its initial report and its suppression, the BBC quoting an official Ukraine statement reported that:

The downed Malaysia Airlines jet in eastern Ukraine suffered an explosive loss of pressure after it was punctured by shrapnel from a missile.

They say the information came from the plane’s flight data recorders, which are being analysed by British experts.

However, it remains unclear who fired a missile, with pro-Russia rebels and Ukraine blaming each other.

Screenshot of BBC Headline on July 28, 2014

Media spin supported Washington’s accusations directed against Russia including the sanctions regime.The BBC suppressed its own July 2014 report with a view to sustaining the official narrative.

About-turn at the BBC? Unlikely

Will the soon to be released BBC documentary contribute to refuting the official lies and fabrications? Namely refuting the earlier lies of the BBC.

The media descriptions suggest that the documentary will contain various innuendos and half-truths, which ultimately sustain the media lies. According to the BBC,

“Conspiracy theories swirl around many accidents, terror attacks or disasters. It’s not surprising, then, that a host of different claims surround the crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. There are theories about fighter jets and different types of missiles. So what really happened?

Will the BBC explain why it censored its own July 2014 TV reports, which had been published online and then carefully removed.

Click Here to access an archive of 100 Global Research articles and reports on the downing of MH17.

Support MH17 Truth: Machine Gun-Like Holes Indicate Shelling from a Military Aircraft. No Evidence of a Surface-to-Air Missile Attack. By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 08, 2016

Which
political leader made war on his own people, killing 262,000 of them,
burning their cities, destroying their food supply and placing the
survivors under military occupation?

If your answer is Saddam Hussein, you’re wrong. The answer is Abraham Lincoln.

Accepting
the Northern but incorrect view of the War Between the States, Lincoln
did exactly the same thing Saddam Hussein did. When “his own people”
rose up in armed rebellion, he crushed the rebellion, brutally and
decisively.

I’m
making this point not to disillusion you about Lincoln but to point out
how propaganda works. One effective way to propagandize people is to
take a fact out of context. Much has been made of the fact that Saddam
Hussein crushed the Kurdish rebellion. Any leader of Iraq would have
crushed the Kurdish rebellion. If the Scots rose up in armed rebellion
today, British Prime Minister Tony Blair would crush, or try to crush,
the rebellion. What do you think the British have been doing in Ireland
all these many years?

Any
government will assert the right to self-defense. When our forefathers
chose to secede from the British Empire, the British tried to crush what
they considered a rebellion. And before you give up the delicious and
high-quality products of France, you should remember that without French
troops and the French fleet, the British would likely have succeeded.

I
know it’s idealistic foolishness to expect the government to tell the
truth rather than to resort to propaganda. For that reason, we, as
citizens, have to learn to recognize propaganda. To sell the war, the
Bush administration has demonized Saddam Hussein. The fact is, Saddam is
a run-of-the-mill dictator, worse than some, better than some. In the
war against Iran, a nation with three times the population of Iraq, the
Iraqis used chemical weapons. So did the Iranians. In World War I, the
United States, the British, the French and the Germans used chemical
weapons. In World War II, we used nuclear weapons. In Waco, Texas, in
1993, the Federal Bureau of Investigation used chemical weapons against
American civilians.

It’s
quite true that, like any other dictator, Saddam treats his political
opponents harshly, but it’s also true that if you stay out of politics,
you could live as freely in Baghdad as you can in New York City. Unlike a
communist-style dictator, Saddam doesn’t give a damn what Iraqis think
or do unless it involves a threat to his hold on power. There are two
categories of dictators: totalitarians who want to control every aspect
of a person’s life, and gangsters who just want to stay in power. Saddam
is in the gangster category. Iraqi women, for example, are entitled to
free education, just the same as men, and are free to choose any
vocation they wish. Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had one of the largest
middle classes in the Middle East, one of the best education systems and
one of the best health care systems. We, not Saddam, have destroyed all
three with the war and economic sanctions.

Another
propaganda technique is to focus on Saddam. To hear the Bush
administration and to watch American television, you’d think Iraq was
occupied by one individual, Saddam. He’s only one of 25 million people,
and the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are just like us, with the same
dreams and hopes we have.

I
don’t give a damn about Saddam Hussein. He’s a tough guy and a killer.
He’s lived 66 years in a tough and dangerous world. I’m sure he’s ready
to die if it comes to that. But why should Iraqi children have to die or
be maimed or orphaned just because our political leader doesn’t like
their political leader? It’s too bad we can’t give Bush and Saddam each a
knife, put them both in a dark room and let them settle the matter
between themselves.

RSIS
Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate,
policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical issues and
contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do
not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced
electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due
recognition to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email: RSISPublications@ntu.edu.sgfor feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentary, Yang Razali Kassim.

No. 097/2016 dated 28 April 2016

US Presidential Election:If Southeast Asia Could Vote

By Christabelle He and Amanda Huan

Synopsis

Hillary
Clinton, for the Democrats, and Donald Trump, for the Republicans, have
emerged front-runners in the presidential nomination campaign. There
has not been much talk about their foreign policy stances, especially in
regard to their positions towards Southeast Asia. If Southeast Asia
were given a chance to vote, who would they vote for?Commentary

THE
UNITED States presidential election campaign is well underway with
Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Donald Trump for the Republicans
emerging as front-runners in the nomination round. While much of their
campaign speeches have revolved around domestic issues, there have been
fewer mentions about their foreign policy stances, especially with
regards to their positions towards Southeast Asia.

If given a
chance to vote, who would the Southeast Asia region vote for? In our
opinion, the vote would likely go to Hillary Clinton. She is not only a
familiar figure, but would also be a president who could give more
attention and benefits to the region.Why Clinton?

There are three main reasons why Clinton could be the preferred choice.

First,
she understands and values Southeast Asia and is well known to the
region. She is the first Secretary of State to have visited all
Southeast Asian capitals. In 2009, Clinton’s second overseas destination
after becoming US Secretary of State had been Indonesia. Clinton took
note of doubts about the US’ promise to partner the region in addressing
security, economic, environmental and humanitarian issues. She
generously gave recognition to Southeast Asia’s largest country,
Indonesia, for its efforts at implementing democratic changes.

Clinton
then visited Vietnam in July 2010 to assert US commitment to the
region. She also signed the Manila Declaration on 16 November 2011 with
Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario to underscore US
commitment to the Philippines as an ally. Further, Clinton reaffirmed
the US-Philippines Mutual Defence Treaty, enlarged US security
arrangements with Singapore, and spoke up for more security ties to be
established “in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region”.

Importantly,
she also participated in bringing change to Myanmar’s ruling system.
Clinton's 2011 stopover in Myanmar, a first by a senior US official in
50 years, is seen by some to have been a “turning point” in US-Myanmar
relations.

Clinton also steered the first group of American
CEOs to the US-ASEAN Business Forum in Cambodia. At the forum, she
promised to send more trade missions, engaged local leaders, and
assembled meetings for business leaders and government officials. She
injected positivity by characterising US-ASEAN cooperation as a novel
way of conducting international relations and utilising ‘smart power’.

Booster of US Presence in Southeast Asia

The
second major reason is that Clinton has helped revitalise US presence
in the region. Even as Clinton drove the American strategy to “pivot”
and rebalance to Asia, she remained supportive of ASEAN-led attempts to
settle a Code of Conduct on the South China Sea issue at the East Asia
Summit in November 2012. Prior to that, in 2010, while she emphasised
US neutrality, she also maintained US interest and willingness to
facilitate multilateral discussions. A Clinton presidency is likely to
lead to a more effective handling of great power relations in the
region.

The third major reason for Clinton being an ideal
candidate is that her presidency could possibly pioneer further positive
changes for US–Southeast Asia relations, especially for women in the
region. If Clinton wins the elections, as the first female President in
the history of the US, she would embody a new era, possibly one that
espouses more hope, opportunities, and recognition for women’s role in
society. In the Plan of Action to Implement the ASEAN-United States
Strategic Partnership (2016-2020), US and Southeast Asian counterparts
have already agreed to enhance collaboration on strengthening
opportunities for women.

What About the Others?

The
other three front-runners, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz,
have comparatively less experience and exposure to the Southeast Asian
region. This, of course, might be due to the lack of opportunity, while
Clinton, as Secretary of State, had more opportunities to interact with
the region.

Looking at the other candidates’ apparent foreign
policy stances towards Asia, however, suggests that Southeast Asia might
not be a high priority area. In the case of Bernie Sanders, he has not
been to the region on any official visit, and has spoken little about
the region. Ted Cruz, while having more experience with Asia in general,
has not focused much on Southeast Asia though he may seek to do so as
he is weary of Asian countries “moving more into the orbit of China and
away from the West”.

Donald Trump has not spoken much about the
region, but his highly-charged rhetoric about other Asian countries
like China and South Korea suggest that he is likely to adopt an
antagonistic stance towards the region. Trump told the New York Times
that, as president, he would "perhaps" lay claim to one of the disputed
islands of the South China Sea for the US.

The billionaire
front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination also remarked
that he is prepared to withdraw US troops from Japan and South Korea if
the countries did not substantially increase their payments to help
maintain the forces. At the South Carolina GOP debate, Trump remarked
that countries such as Vietnam were “taking our jobs … taking our wealth
… taking our base” and so vowed that he would bring jobs back to the
US.

Clinton’s Track Record

Clinton
has had a good track record of doing good for the Southeast Asian
region in spite of her recent retreat from supporting the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), understandable given the domestic situation and the
on-going election campaign. Given the way she has adeptly handled and
managed ties with Southeast Asia previously, the region may be assured
that Clinton would be able to work out a reasonable agreement for both
the US and Southeast Asian nations involved in the TPP.

In all,
a Clinton presidency is likely to mean continued US involvement in the
region as a result of a continuation of Obama’s foreign policy legacy
towards Southeast Asia. Aside from a possible sustenance of frequent
high-level visits and exchanges between US and Southeast Asian
counterparts, Clinton can also be expected to ensure that America and
Southeast Asia work together in areas such as the South China Sea
disputes and the conclusion of the TPP.

Christabelle
He and Amanda Huan are research analysts at the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com